ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2021
Development and Validation of a Universal Science Writing Rubric That is Applicable to Diverse Genres of Science Writing.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Human and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Writing and Rating Restorative Dentistry Essays.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Article
- Modifying the CREATE method with inclusive approaches helps students engage with socioscientific applications of the primary scientific literature.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is critical for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students to develop competencies in science communication, including science writing. However, it can be difficult for instructors and departments to assess the quality of their students' science writing. Many published science writing rubrics are specific to certain genres like lab reports. We thus developed a Universal Science Writing Rubric (USWR) that is usable regardless of the genre or audience of science writing. This tool enables students, instructors, and departments to assess science writing written to lay or scientific audiences, focusing on important rhetorical concerns like science content and interpretation rather than simply surface features like grammar. We demonstrate the use of our USWR on various life science lab reports, scientific review articles, grant proposals, and news articles, showing that the USWR is sensitive enough to highlight statistically significant differences between groups of student writing samples and valid enough to produce results that echo published and anecdotal observations of STEM student science writing skills. Thus, the USWR is a useful tool for assessment of STEM student science writing that is widely applicable in the classroom and laboratory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.